Ferdinand

This thread has now been negotiated to a standstill and come to an agreement. It's time to move on. The new "Self-build outside the EU" thread is here:

Now that the EU-UK Trade Agreement is finalised, and due to be signed, this new thread is about self-build in the new environment. There is a decent summary of the agreement here: at the Institute for Government, which has both the salient points of the agreement and an interpretation in human-ese: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal We will keep the focus a little (!) more tightly on self-build than the previous threads. Ferdinand

I find the key with microwaves is never to spend more than £50 on one.

Can you not just slice the top (say) 80% off the parquet with an appropriate fixed saw (table?) with a guide, then lay that back on a flat base? Call them Parquet Slips. Swerve the bitumen. That way you know exactly how much oak or pine or whatever you will have to cut through by checking the area of the room ? . One thing that always happens is that you lose some, so you need to have a plan for using 5-10% less.

Can I ask, roughly how much of the cost of an ASHP is covered by the grant? Very, very ishly.

Looks good. What's in the Jynnan Tonyx?

Am I correct to think that this is the market (hopefully) finding its level? What we need is perhaps a longer term scheme, and more suppliers in the market.

Personally I think a system starting from scratch is the way to go before long. Perhaps at the end of the taper.

I still cannot tell whether that is 25% of EU current catches in UK waters. Or 25% of all catches in UK waters. But then I thought we were at about 25% already, and +25% would take us to 50%.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. We're all at level 2, building a house.

How much water did you put on with the plaster - that's how much you need to get out roughly. The last one I did was a 65 sqm bungalow and I was able to get that from new plaster -> paintable in about 4 days running a couple of big dehumidifiers at a temp of 30C. TBH I would say get one good big dehumidifier and see. I would recommend a Broughton CR40, which is the smaller of the two I have. F

Remember that (as of now) the Govt Change of Use updates are in place as they won in Court. But there may be an Appeal.

Eeyore ? I refer you to the Tao of Pooh: "Rivers know this; we will get there in the end."

We seem to have a deal. I declare this thread retired.

I have one of those in my front door, but organised by the previous occupant. I expect that there are also companies who will print it onto film that you could stick it on, or even the right sort of translucent paper to put through your own large format printer. So you can change it every year.

Yes they can. Not really any different to gossip down the pub. When I did my (bigger) one, there was a petition on the pub counter ?. With 300 signatures. Try and think about it as an episode rather than something that will undermine relationships. My immediate neighbour at the time said "you know we have to", which I disagree with but understand - he was getting a pedestrian refuge in the middle of the road nearly level with his entrance. It could even help improve the quality of your design !

No. Disagree. It would be the test that delivers (from your link) - 99.7% correct positive results in heavy viral load. - 79% when used by lab scientists. - 73% when used by trained healthcare staff. - and your 58% with self-trained members of the public !! The Port of Dover and the queue for the Chunnel are controlled spaces, and the ones we really need to detect are the heavy viral loads. It's not 100%, which is why I think it depends on what they want. Though I do wonder how much variant strain already exists elsewhere eg France as it seems likely that it is flagged here first is just because we are the best at finding it. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/21/1015315/the-uk-is-spooking-everyone-with-its-new-covid-19-strain-heres-what-scientists-know/ F

I think the way to deal with the immediate impact of the stoppage is fairly obvious - we have capacity to implement 100% lateral flow testing for an immediate COVID result at the Port of Dover and the Chunnel at very short notice. The total trucks going out of Dover and the Chunnel are about 10k per day in toto. And it's not as if presently they have got to get going in less time than it takes ?. The question would be whether the test is reliable enough in the view of the French or EU authorities. My view on the other question is that Napoleon Macron will continue playing games until shortly before his fishing industry is due to turn into a pumpkin at midnight. It's how it works. F

I think that in practice they can do either. There are some emergency get-outs from EU rules, and then enforcement against that being over used takes up to 5-10 years. France banned British beef in I think 1990 or soon after, whilst an EU worldwide ban was not imposed until 1996. France continued an illegal ban for years after the EU one was lifted. Obviously sufficient measures to protect French people from BSE in France were not taken (which TBF probably mirrors certain aspects of the early response here too, though it was long after the seriousness of the problem was known). F

Post a copy and get a Certificate of Posting, so you can prove it went in.

Sorry I don't know that. One problem with complaints processes and ombudsmen is that redress does not happen until afterwards ie even you win the damn thing may well already have been built. Whilst your goal may be to derail it first. Local papers and similar are useful in that respect in that they embarrass people *first*.

You seem to think that there is something reasonably big and dodgy going on. One further option is to put your pack of information together and talk to a journo at the local paper. Journos are always short of time, so in these cases you either need to provide them with a predigested story with nearly all the ducks in a row, or persuade someone to take it up as a personal crusade if you can convince them it is sufficiently whiffy. When I was trying to get a planning app through using the "Council does not have an Approved Local Plan in place therefore there is a presumption in favour of development" exception the in the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework), for some incomprehensible reason there was a series of stories on page 1 or 2 of the local paper everytime the Council had another difficulty in the process of trying to get the Local Plan in place. The work consisted of pointing the journo to the relevant bit of text buried in an obscure Council document and explaining what it meant in a way which was interesting and understandable. It's like an elevator pitch - they need a one page summary that grabs their attention. Do not come across as Mr Suburb. F

Yes, but your objection should be about "building line" not "building line because of this covenant" - because the "building line" is I think a relevant planning matter, but the covenant is not. That is the skill of being good at writing objectiions. So don't give them the easy-out of saying "he's talking about covenants, so that objection is not relevant". You may find this document useful - covenants between individual plots come under '"private issues between neighbours". https://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Material Planning Considerations.pdf There may be other stuff in Council Policy Documents, local plans etc. There is a free independent advice service called "Planning Aid" which provides advice on general planning questions (see Google). They do not deal with individual proposals, so you would need to frame your question eg "is deviation from the Building Line a relevant planning matter?". F

This reply seems a bit convoluted, but I hope helps. That would probably be a determination via Planning Law that looks to you like the Council responding to the Covenant. Covenants are what is called "not a relevant planning matter". The covenant is a thing in private law (it may be called "contract law" or "property law" - not sure which) attached to a property's Deeds, which binds the owner, unless it has become impossible to enforce over the years by various means which do not need to be covered here (mainly people breaking an identical covenant and it not being enforced). Anything that is the Council deciding a planning decision on the basis of covenants say "no building less than 50 feet back from the road" would usually be due to something similar-looking in planning law, which would perhaps be "sticking to the building line" or similar, which *is* a relevant concept in Planning Law / Policy. If the reference in the decision or background reasoning is explicitly to a Covenant and that can be proven, then imo in such circumstances an Appeal made explicitly on the basis that an application had been refused on the basis of a Covenant rather than a relevant Planning concept should (imo) succeed by arguing that the decision had used non-material planning matters in the determination. F